Phases 5 and 6 promise to be different and more interactive than previous phases. The goal of Phase 5 is to introduce the attendees to the various limitations and opportunities we will face as we work to formulate a new Facilities Master Plan. It will be a very interactive and engaging opportunity to get familiar with the different data points and possibilities that exist within each of the six regions.

The results from Phase 5 will inform the sixth and final phase of the process. In this final “Transform” phase, we will ask the community to review the options outlined in Phase 5 and work towards building a consensus around a specific plan that we would refine and ultimately bring to the Board of Education for final approval.  

Participants should come with an open mind and the expectation that they are going to engage in activities to ensure they understand the complexities of creating a Facilities Master Plan.

We are creating a Facilities Master Plan that has the potential to set in motion generational changes for our city. In that respect, we are seeking broad stakeholder input to ensure we’re making the best possible recommendations for the future of our school district and our city. We need all voices to build the consensus necessary for a successful plan.

Your participation will help the District decide the future of its schools and how those buildings put the more than 47,000 students at the heart of the District’s long-term vision and priorities. You can help the District decide the future of its buildings and how those buildings inspire creativity and critical thinking and fulfill the mission, vision, and priorities of the District’s Portrait of a Graduate.

It is no secret that many CCS buildings are outdated, unreliable, and impractical. In other words, some schools are more than 60 years old, are forced to close when temperatures are too hot, and have small classrooms that are not conducive to 21st century learning. By helping the District decide the next steps for these buildings, you are part of the solution.

This truly has been and will continue to be a community-led effort, from the volunteer community co-chairs and student leads representing each region to the format of the meetings, allowing for open dialogue and discussion. This plan will reflect the values, dreams, and aspirations of our city but it can only reflect those voices that participate in the process. If you have an idea, add it to the canvas of feedback we are collecting and engage in dialogue with your neighbors about how we can best address the needs of our entire community through this process.

CCS currently operates 112 academic facilities.

Based on the metrics provided by the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC), these facilities have a capacity for 59,119 students.

Particularly with a district as large as Columbus, we have buildings of many different ages, reflecting different philosophies of education, and the design and materials that were available when those facilities were built.

The district is operating academic facilities that have gone more than 100 years since a comprehensive renovation with our newest facility being only 4 years old. An update to the FMP is the opportunity to set new goals and priorities for the district’s academic facilities aligned with our vision for student success: the “Portrait of a Graduate.”

The district will hold community dialogues through the remainder of calendar year 2021 to garner feedback on the desires and needs for the district’s future academic facilities.

Once we have completed that work, we will work with our state partners at the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) to cost out all of the recommendations and to design a phasing and execution plan for all the recommended projects. This work will begin in early 2022 and continue into the spring as we present those options to the Board of Education. We anticipate the Board will take action to approve a plan in May of 2022.

A total of 46 Facilities have been built new or comprehensively renovated since 2004 when the district launched its Facility Master Plan work.

In the past, facility condition was the driving factor behind most of the projects completed, with a worst-first approach to prioritizing projects.

There is great disparity across the district’s current facilities, ranging from the oldest at 126 years old (built in 1895) and the newest being only 4 years old (built in 2017). Building condition tends to decline as a facility ages, unless that facility has been comprehensively renovated during those intervening years.

The district’s oldest facilities were built before electricity was common in buildings. Central air-conditioning was not common until the 1970s, and computers were not used in academic instruction until the 1980s. There is a tremendous amount of infrastructure the district has had to retrofit into its older facilities to support all the needs of today’s students.

For some additional context, all of the district’s 66 facilities that have not been addressed in the FMP were constructed prior to 1977, and only one of those has been comprehensively renovated since it was built. As a result, the age and condition of our facilities vary greatly.

A FMP project is where one of two things occurs: either we build a brand new facility, generally to replace one or more existing facilities, or we renovate the existing structure. In that case, we still bring it up to the same standard as the newly constructed facility, only within the existing structure. Generally speaking, these renovations are very invasive and have to be completed while the facility is unoccupied.

A lifecycle renewal project is one where we plan for and make a strategic upgrade at a facility to bring a specific system back to a like new condition. A good example would be roof replacement. A typical roof would have an expected useful life of 20 to 25 years. We expect our facilities to last longer than this timeframe so we plan for and replace the roof at a targeted interval when it needs replaced.

These same types of projects are required to keep a building in like new condition and should be completed for a variety of systems, including: heating and cooling systems, safety systems, plumbing and electrical systems, flooring, equipment, pavements, etc.

The district has a number of historically significant structures, some of which have already been renovated through the FMP, and some of which have not. In the past, we have evaluated with the community on a case-by-case basis and made a decision for each facility whether it made more sense to renovate or replace a facility. A similar discussion will occur in this process.

CCS, along with many other school districts across the state, participates in the K-12 School Program sponsored by the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC), previously known as the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC). Through this process, local school districts agree to be co-owners with the OFCC through the entire process of planning, design, and construction of eligible academic facilities.

Our agreement with the OFCC stipulates that within an approved plan, for every dollar spent, 70% will come from our local tax base with the other 30% coming from the State of Ohio. We sometimes refer to this as our 70/30 split.

The Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) has a rule that they use to help determine when it is more appropriate to renovate a facility rather than to replace it. Each facility is assessed to determine what it needs to bring it back to a like new condition. If those costs exceed 2/3 of the cost to replace the facility, the recommendation is to build a new facility.

We will be developing the strategy as part of the upcoming community engagement and implementation plans. Building condition will remain one priority, but there are other factors that are likely to be included. These include overcrowding and the need to add capacity in certain areas, and the need for swing space to execute certain projects.

We know construction is disruptive, and many of our urban sites are fairly constrained. Swing space is when we temporarily move a school population to a different facility to allow us to either renovate their existing facility (while it is not occupied), or to allow us to demolish the old facility and build the brand new one.

CSS has partnered with Battelle for Kids to develop the “Portrait of a Graduate.” This document is our driving force behind the academic programming that our students need to be successful.

Six attributes have been identified by the district to support our Portrait of a Graduate. They are: Adaptability, Communication, Creativity, Critical Thinking, Global Empathy, and Technology. Our consultants at Legat Architects are reviewing all academic facilities to grade them for their “educational adequacy” and how well they support the district’s Portrait of a Graduate vision. This metric will also be used in the prioritization to modernize facilities through the FMP.